Comment

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on April 17, 2011 at 11:38pm

 

PRANAVA VADA & THE PAULI EXCLUSION PRINCIPLE:

 

Thanks to Jacques for providing a simple explanation for one of the most famous principles. Also thanks to David for correctly analyzing the basic principle of Pranava Vada. which is one of Negation. Bhagwan Das, in his famous work "The Science of Peace" on page 112 writes:

 

The first letter of the sacred word, A, signifies the Self ; the second letter, U, signifies the Not-Self; and the third letter, M, signifies the everlasting Relation, the unbreakable nexus of Negation, by the Self, of the Not-Self between them.

 

The Pauli Exclusion Principle as explained by Jacques, "There can never (Negation) be two or more eqivalent electrons in an atom" states similar principle. Also, as David accurately analyzed, "if two exist, a third must", gives the origin or the reason for the various forces acting inside and outside of the atom. Part of it is covered in the Spin Statistics theorem which is the mathematical proof for Pauli Exclusion Principle.

Comment by David Reigle on April 17, 2011 at 4:29pm

Martin, what you reported, that about 93% of scientists believe in the reductionist paradigm, seems to be the sad truth. Look at the reception that Dr. Stuart Hameroff got at the "Beyond Belief" conference, recounted in his article, "Being the skunk at an atheist convention":

http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/skunk.htm

He there writes:

"Near the end of the first day came my turn to speak. I began by saying that the conference to that point had been like the Spanish Inquisition in reverse -  the scientists were burning the believers. And while I had no particular interest in organized religion, I did believe there could be a scientific account for spirituality."

"After pointing out faulty assumptions in conventional brain models for consciousness and summarizing the Penrose-Hameroff theory, I laid out my plausibility argument for scientific, secular spirituality, suggesting cosmic connections and influence in our conscious thoughts occurred via quantum interactions in microtubules. I closed with a slide of the DNA molecule which emphasized it’s internal core where quantum effects rule, suggesting a Penrose non-computable influence in genetic mutations and evolution (aimed at Dawkins in the form of a quantum-based intelligent design)."

"At the end a few people clapped loudly, but most sat in steely silence. The moderator and conference organizer Roger Bingham said I had enraged nearly everyone in the room. Indeed, I had raised a stink, and felt (happily) like the skunk at an atheist convention."

Comment by Jacques Mahnich on April 17, 2011 at 1:54pm

The Pauli exclusion principle is expressed as : "There can never be two or more equivalent electrons in an atom. These are defined to be electron for which the value of all quantum number is the same. If, in an atom, one electron occurs which has quantum numbers with this specific value, then the state is occupied".
Now, to go further will need detailed explanations on quantum numbers and particle spin-characteristics.
As a simplification, we can say that all atoms is made of a nucleus and electrons orbiting around (even if this is not a true representation with quantum physics). Electromagnetic attraction/repulsion is governing the behavior at this scale (atomic one). If the Pauli exclusion principle did not exist, matter would not exist as it is, because all electrons would gather at the lowest level of energy around the nucleus.
There is no one fact in the physical world which has a greater impact on the way things are, than the Pauli Exclusion Prinicple.

Comment by Martin Euser on April 17, 2011 at 10:10am

David wrote:

"Thank you, Morry, for confirming this. I just spoke to a friend who was commenting on the sad situation that modern science has brought about in relation to the brain-mind question. Since it teaches that consciousness is a product of the synapses firing in the brain, when the brain dies, consciousness dies. That is the end. Period. So modern science offers a very bleak picture of life to its followers today, and it has a lot of followers who accept this as rational and true. In perspective, all the promising parallels it offers to the teachings of the wisdom tradition seem to pale into insignificance against this picture of what life is."

 

I read in some article that about 93% of scientists believe in the reductionist paradigm. That is an amazing number, given the massive evidence against this paradigm. More about that in my blog postings on "beyond reductionism". If one is impatient, one could consider buying some good books on the subject, like I mention in my blogpost and elsewhere on this site ("Irreducible mind" from Edward Kelly comes to mind here).

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on April 17, 2011 at 1:25am

 

Thank You David and Morry.

 

I will have to somewhat disagree with the propositions that modern science is unanimous in rejecting original form of intelligence as well as early forms of matter in relation to Big Bang.

 

In absence of any theory proving or disproving the "Original Intelligence", it would not really be feasible to even consider rejecting it. The best one can do is to say, "We don't know". And, this is what eminent scientists have been doing. As for the early forms of matter, following from Wikipedia may give an idea:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

 

After about 10⁻¹¹ seconds, the picture becomes less speculative, since particle energies drop to values that can be attained in particle physics experiments. At about 10⁻⁶ seconds, quarks and gluons combined to form baryons such as protons and neutrons.

 

Considering the age of the universe to be 13 billion plus years, a time of 10⁻⁶ seconds may really be considered for existence of early form of matter (as defined by science and different from Dravya or Substance). However, Big Bang theory is still under development and a number of changes are expected in future.

 

One of the most significant contributors to the refinement of Big Bang theory has been the images from the Hubble Space Telescope which after a few upgrades in recent years has become capable of seeing up to 800 million years after the Big Bang. Its successor, the James Webb space telescope, to be stationed beyond the moon at a gravitationally neutral position in Space (Laya Centre?) in 2014 is expected to be capable of seeing from 300 million years after the Big Bang to right up to it. Perhaps even beyond it! Allow couple of years for the images and another couple of years for the scientists to analyze them and by 2018 one can hope to have a theory which will be quite close to the reality.

 

The fact that we can see over such timelines itself is indicative that information is not lost in the universe (Lipikas?). Can it be possible without any “Intelligence”? There are a number of theories currently under development for the spiral shapes of the galaxies (FOHAT?).

 

That consciousness dies with a person is also not accepted by every scientist. Dr. Stuart Hammeroff has teamed up with eminent scientist Roger Penrose to develop what is currently termed as “Embedded Platonic Information System at Planckian Scale (10^-35) in the Universe”. Many believe that such information system interacts with human mind and influences it. This information system exists in wave form and one of the experiments of Roger Penrose resulted in returning the values indicating that information carried by these waves travel at a much greater speed than light. Inevitably one gets reminded of the Spanda doctrine of Kashmir Shaivism.  

 

These are exciting times for scientists. What it is like for the philosophers?

 

Comment by David Reigle on April 17, 2011 at 12:15am

Thank you, Morry, for confirming this. I just spoke to a friend who was commenting on the sad situation that modern science has brought about in relation to the brain-mind question. Since it teaches that consciousness is a product of the synapses firing in the brain, when the brain dies, consciousness dies. That is the end. Period. So modern science offers a very bleak picture of life to its followers today, and it has a lot of followers who accept this as rational and true. In perspective, all the promising parallels it offers to the teachings of the wisdom tradition seem to pale into insignificance against this picture of what life is.

 

Captain Anand, I still have no understanding of the Pauli Exclusion Principle, despite your helpful links on it. So I cannot comment on it in relation to the Pranava-vada's principle of the necessity of the relation of negation. There are many, many ramifications of this principle of negation, as this book shows; so many understandings of it are possible. The basic idea of it that I have is that for manifestation to occur, there must be two distinct things. Thus, "the one" (or a reflection of "the one") becomes polarized, resulting in a positive and a negative pole. The relation between these two poles is one of negation, negation of one pole toward the other. This is inevitable or a necessary consequence. This necessary relation sets up an energy field that results in or makes possible manifestation. So this relation of negation always exists during manifestation, and in fact defines manifestation. Thus I would see this principle as: if two exist, a third must. This third would be, in the cosmogony of The Secret Doctrine, fohat, as far as I understand it.

Comment by morry secrest on April 15, 2011 at 10:26am

David, in answer to your question, the short answer is, yes.

 

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on April 12, 2011 at 12:52am

 

Thanks David, for yur kind words and thanks to Jacques too, for expanding upon Pauli Exclusion Principle. Not understood is not the same as not verified. The principle has been established in the study of various phenomena. The mathematics has been worked out. However, like everything else, it may undergo some modification in the future, based on new discoveries. Its reflection can be found even in the PRANAVA VADA's principle of "Necessity of Relation of Negation", (if one exists the other cannot). Perhaps David can explain this principle of PRANAVA VADA better, if I have misunderstood it.

 

Interestingly, E C G Sudrashan's father was teaching Physics at Benares Hindu University and was in touch with many members of the TS there, including Bhagwan Das, as per our friends at the TS Varanasi. How can we invite him or Ian Duck to join the discussion here?

 

Comment by David Reigle on April 11, 2011 at 11:44pm

I surely do appreciate these things that you posted, Morry and Capt. Anand. Otherwise, I would never know them or see them or hear of them. The discussion between Einstein and Poincare reminds me of why I study Theosophy. Morry, is it true that science today is almost unanimous in rejecting any original intelligence in relation to the Big Bang and early forms of matter in the universe?

Comment by Capt. Anand Kumar on April 11, 2011 at 12:34am

Welcome Morry.

 

Just the amazing number of constants that have to come together for our universe to evolve the way it did does appear to support Intelligent Design rather than Random Selection. Interestingly Einstein thought that these constants are not the real constants which have to be pure numbers, withou units. Even more interesting is the conversation between him and Henri Poincare quoted in John D Barrow's 2002 publication, "The Constants of Nature", ISBN 0-375-4222I-8:

 

Einstein: 'You know, Henri, I once studied mathematics, but I gave it up for physics.'

Poincare: 'Oh, really, Albert, why is that?'

Einstein: 'Because although I could tell the true statements from the false, I just couldn't tell which facts were the important ones.'

Poincare: 'That is very interesting, Albert, because, I originally studied physics, but left the field for mathematics.'

Einstein: 'Really, why?'

Poincare: 'Because I couldn't tell which of the important facts were true.'

 

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• …
• 13
• Next ›
• Page